Advice on mask-wearing to protect against Covid-19

Jonathan Edwards said:
As see it the problem is that the experiment you need to do to prove anything cannot be done.
Click to expand...

I think this raises the question of what sort of evidence we should be looking for.

If I wanted to check that masks were protecting people, I'd get a plastic model of a person and give it artificial respiration (including moisture) from a sealed-off respiratory reservoir and have the dummy breathe in and out in a Covid-rich environment while wearing different types of mask (or no mask) and then measure how much Covid had made it through to the dummy's interior. Do mask manufacturers really not do that? If not, why not? It seems the obvious thing to do.
 
Sasha said:
Someone recently told me that the evidence shows that masks don't protect the wearer against viruses (including Covid) because the viral particles are too small to be stopped, and that some meta-analyses show that this is true even of N95 ones.
Click to expand...
A mask is not simply a sieve, virus particles can also get stuck to the fibres in the filters due to their electric charge.

As government bodies have more or less decided covid is of little to no threat I guess they don't see the point in having the information available. I remembered there was an infographic from CDC floating around a while back, that showed N95 are better than surgical and cloth masks, found this on Archive: https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communication/masks.html.
 
Sasha said:
Someone recently told me that the evidence shows that masks don't protect the wearer against viruses (including Covid) because the viral particles are too small to be stopped, and that some meta-analyses show that this is true even of N95 ones.
Click to expand...
I imagine they are quoting (wrongly) the most recent Cochrane review on masks - we do have a thread here on that review but my addled brain cant find it in this moment.

Midnattsol said:
A mask is not simply a sieve, virus particles can also get stuck to the fibres in the filters due to their electric charge.
Click to expand...
yes i did watch a video about this - that N95s dont work due to their thicker fabric but because of the way they are made with a charge that attracts particulates.

An N95/99 that fits snugly cant help but protect better than a surgical mask because at least some of the particulates will be attracted to the charge, in addition to it being thicker than and therefore giving more protection against the fluids containing virus that are released in coughs & sneezes.

This notion that N95s are no better than surgical simply cannot be accurate imho, based on the fact that surgical masks are so absurdly baggy i think they are bordering on pointless for the wearer. But people dont seem to realise that for an N95 to work it has to fit properly, not be touched by virusy fingers or taken off put in the pocket & then put back on again etc.

And the metal nose piece must be actually folded over the nose to make it snug... i just dont understand why people wear them so that air can get in all around, use them repeatedly after touching all the inside with germ covered hands, and then moan that they dont work... its common sense!

And surely they must protect others from the wearer - if they fit properly & have no valve - you've only got to see how damp they get inside after an hour of wearing - thats the wearers breath - which would be in the room otherwise surely?

I never go anywhere public indoors without my N95 on & i couldnt care less what people think. I also make sure to wear my large rimmed glasses - i read a study done on italian health care workers back in the early days - it was comparing people in same environments who wore eye protection plus masks with maks alone & the results were quite significant. I know glasses arent the same as visors but better than nothing i reckon.

The only exception is in certain Drs consulting rooms - if its important they dont suspect me of health anxiety, there's a little ventilation, & neither they nor their nurse appears to have any symptoms... then i take it off, & then put it back on to go through waiting area & common areas. This is risky, but currently because of the other dx i have on my notes... getting pegged with HA as well, would be just as risky to me overall, even if in a different way.

It makes me laugh at my gp surgery though... they ask everyone to wear a mask, but the gp pulls her surgical mask down to talk to me... i mean why even bother wearing it at all? I guess she pulls it up if she hears someone coughing.
 
I view masking up probabilistically. The right kind of mask, used properly, greatly decreases the risk of inhaling virus, and the quantity of virus inhaled if you are exposed.

Particularly effective if your risk is casual, like mine. Meaning I am not in contact with the public much, so masking up when I am is a high return proposition for me.
 
Sasha said:
Someone recently told me that the evidence shows that masks don't protect the wearer against viruses (including Covid) because the viral particles are too small to be stopped, and that some meta-analyses show that this is true even of N95 ones.

A quick Google search found the usual Internet whirlpool of confusion concerning the evidence on masks and Covid. I was struck by being unable to find any authoritative, government-level body that has given a recent (last few months) statement on the evidence-based opinion on masks. Even if there have been no recent studies, IMO they should still be issuing such statements so that people can be confident that their position on the science is current, and they should be fully referencing their statements. This seems a terrible failure of comms.

I don't have time to do a PhD in this (and neither, surely, does the rest of the public), but would like to know if I'm getting false assurance from my mask (or conversely, if it's giving me enough protection to enable me to spend time with people in real life again).

Is there really no such summary?

If not, how can ordinary people come to an evidence-based view?
Click to expand...
Completely false. N95s filter small particles effectively. They are rammed into the filter material by Brownian motion.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Oh yes, people have done lots of experiments like that and masks reduce virus transit under those conditions. The problem is that they bear a very indirect relation to real life.
Click to expand...

Also, masks can't fit every face. They're good, but when I was using them even the best I could buy left small gaps at two places on each side. I could adjust them to the optimum position when I went out, but as soon as I'd had to move my face to speak, there was a slight shift.
 
Sasha said:
Thanks, @RedFox. Do you have any refs? I'd like to study this stuff a bit.
Click to expand...
I hastily found this paper which discusses how particulate filters work: An overview of filtration efficiency through the masks: Mechanisms of the aerosols penetration. They're not like screens that only catch particles smaller than the screen. They trap larger particles by screening them, but they can still trap particles smaller than the distance between fibers via an effect that only happens at tiny scales: Brownian motion. All the molecules of air are moving at different speeds, and when a small particle gets struck by a particularly fast air molecule, the collision makes it abruptly change course, like a billiard ball being hit by a cue ball. Each time this happens, the particle has a chance of being shoved off course into the filter material.

If I recall correctly, N95 masks/filters are rated for their performance at 0.3 um because this size is (or was) one of the hardest to filter--small enough to slip between the fibers, but big enough to not get beaten around too much by Brownian motion.
 
RedFox said:
If I recall correctly, N95 masks/filters are rated for their performance at 0.3 um because this size is (or was) one of the hardest to filter--small enough to slip between the fibers, but big enough to not get beaten around too much by Brownian motion.
Click to expand...
Yes, important to keep in mind that is the minimum standard they have to meet – removing at least 95% of the target range of particles. They will typically do a lot better than that.
 
Sasha said:
Someone recently told me that the evidence shows that masks don't protect the wearer against viruses (including Covid) because the viral particles are too small to be stopped, and that some meta-analyses show that this is true even of N95 ones.
Click to expand...
My understanding has always been that masks do not really protect the wearer, but primarily protect others from the larger droplets expelled when you cough, splutter, sneeze etc. So by no means foolproof, but a beneficial contribution to the numbers game. I seem to remember that was the main message early on in the Covid outbreak, wear a mask to protect others.
 
Barry said:
My understanding has always been that masks do not really protect the wearer, but primarily protect others from the larger droplets expelled when you cough, splutter, sneeze etc. So by no means foolproof, but a beneficial contribution to the numbers game. I seem to remember that was the main message early on in the Covid outbreak, wear a mask to protect others.
Click to expand...
I think that was true in the early stages of the pandemic when it was thought that it was a droplet transmitted infection. It's now established as airbourne, not just in droplets, so we need better quality masks that can filter out virus particles, not just cloth ones that catch bigger droplets. I think the better masks protect in both directions.
 
Barry said:
My understanding has always been that masks do not really protect the wearer, but primarily protect others from the larger droplets expelled when you cough, splutter, sneeze etc. So by no means foolproof, but a beneficial contribution to the numbers game. I seem to remember that was the main message early on in the Covid outbreak, wear a mask to protect others.
Click to expand...
That's also completely and utterly false, it's misinformation pushed by the CDC in the early stages of the pandemic. Let's first look at a few terms:

  • Source control: Preventing an infected person from spreading to others.
  • Infection control: Preventing the wearer from getting infected. Good infection control provides excellent protection to others because You cannot transmit a virus you do not have.
  • Low-effectiveness masks like cloth and surgical masks provide a little source control and very little infection control. This is because they have a poor fit and cannot filter fine particles well. Particles and droplets are bigger immediately after being exhaled because they haven't dried out yet. That's why these masks are better for source control.
  • An N95 with no exhalation valve provides excellent source and infection control.
  • An N95 with an exhalation valve provides excellent infection control but only a little source control.
Through the entirety of the pandemic, I wore masks with exhalation valves. I had no guilt about this. Early on, I cared primarily about protecting myself because I considered myself vulnerable, and I knew I couldn't transmit an infection I couldn't get. Later, nobody cared about being protected anyways.
 
When cases (per wastewater locally) are low, then I will linger in indoor spaces but with a mask.

At the moment cases where I live (per wastewater calculation) are deemed moderate. I won't stay inside for more than a few minutes when there are people about. Of course, I have on an N95.

If a place is crowded with people, and the level is moderate or higher, I just won't go in, unless absolutely necessary.

There has only been two weeks (in the past almost 4 years) when i went into the small grocery store unmasked.

I just can't afford the chance of long covid or a bad case of covid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom